RE: [PATCH v10 12/15] platform/x86: dell-smbios: Add filtering support

[Mario.Limonciello]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pali RohÃr [mailto:pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2018 8:51 AM
> To: Limonciello, Mario <Mario_Limonciello@xxxxxxxx>
> Cc: dvhart@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx; linux-
> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; platform-driver-x86@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; luto@xxxxxxxxxx;
> quasisec@xxxxxxxxxx; rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; mjg59@xxxxxxxxxx; hch@xxxxxx;
> greg@xxxxxxxxx; gnomes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 12/15] platform/x86: dell-smbios: Add filtering support
> 
> On Friday 05 January 2018 14:48:39 Mario.Limonciello@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: platform-driver-x86-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:platform-driver-x86-
> > > owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Pali RohÃr
> > > Sent: Friday, January 5, 2018 8:44 AM
> > > To: Limonciello, Mario <Mario_Limonciello@xxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: dvhart@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx; linux-
> > > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; platform-driver-x86@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> luto@xxxxxxxxxx;
> > > quasisec@xxxxxxxxxx; rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; mjg59@xxxxxxxxxx; hch@xxxxxx;
> > > greg@xxxxxxxxx; gnomes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 12/15] platform/x86: dell-smbios: Add filtering support
> > >
> > > On Friday 05 January 2018 14:32:54 Mario.Limonciello@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: platform-driver-x86-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:platform-driver-
> x86-
> > > > > owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Pali RohÃr
> > > > > Sent: Friday, January 5, 2018 5:13 AM
> > > > > To: Limonciello, Mario <Mario_Limonciello@xxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Cc: dvhart@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Andy Shevchenko
> <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx>;
> > > > > LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; platform-driver-
> x86@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > > Andy
> > > > > Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx>; quasisec@xxxxxxxxxx; rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > > > > mjg59@xxxxxxxxxx; hch@xxxxxx; Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx>; Alan Cox
> > > > > <gnomes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 12/15] platform/x86: dell-smbios: Add filtering
> support
> > > > >
> > > > > I know that this patch is already applied and merged, but I spotted this
> > > > > problem:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thursday 19 October 2017 12:50:15 Mario Limonciello wrote:
> > > > > > +/* calls that are explicitly blacklisted */
> > > > > > +static struct smbios_call call_blacklist[] = {
> > > > > > +	{0x0000, 01, 07}, /* manufacturing use */
> > > > > > +	{0x0000, 06, 05}, /* manufacturing use */
> > > > > > +	{0x0000, 11, 03}, /* write once */
> > > > > > +	{0x0000, 11, 07}, /* write once */
> > > > >
> > > > > Numbers prefixed by zero means that they are in octal notation, right?
> > > > Is that how the kernel interprets an integer prefix by zero?
> > >
> > > No, this is how C language define it. See e.g. C11 standard, section
> > > 6.4.4.1 Integer constants:
> > >
> > > decimal-constant:
> > > 	nonzero-digit
> > > 	decimal-constant digit
> > >
> > > octal-constant:
> > > 	0
> > > 	octal-constant octal-digit
> > >
> > > So in C decimal number cannot start with digit zero.
> > >
> > > I think the place where octal numbers are used are in permissions (0777)
> > >
> > > > I prefixed by zero for readability, they're supposed to be decimal.
> > > >
> > > > > This can lead to misunderstanding, confusion or problems in future...
> > > > >
> > > > > Can we have all numbers either in hexadecimal or decimal notation?
> > > >
> > > > Could you elaborate more why this is problematic the way it is?
> > >
> > > Currently it is not problem as 7 is same number in octal (07) and
> > > decimal (7). representation. But e.g. octal 077 is 63 in decimal.
> > >
> > > > Are you meaning you would rather see this?
> > > > 	{0x0000, 1, 7}, /* manufacturing use */
> > > > 	{0x0000, 6, 5}, /* manufacturing use */
> > > > 	{0x0000, 11, 3}, /* write once */
> > > > 	{0x0000, 11, 7}, /* write once */
> > >
> > > Yes, this is better. If you need to achieve alignment then use spaces.
> > > Really, not leading zeros.
> > >
> > > > That seems less readable to me but should interpret the same way.
> > >
> > > Example:
> > >
> > > {0x000, 077, 7},
> > > {0x000, 007, 7},
> > >
> > > is **not** same as
> > >
> > > {0x000,  77, 7},
> > > {0x000,   7, 7},
> > >
> > > As first number in first section is (decimal) 63, not (decimal) 77.
> > >
> > > > Perhaps it would be better if you submit a patch with what is clearer to
> > > > you.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > +	{0x0000, 11, 11}, /* write once */
> > > > > > +	{0x0000, 19, -1}, /* diagnostics */
> > > > > > +	/* handled by kernel: dell-laptop */
> > > > > > +	{0x0000, CLASS_INFO, SELECT_RFKILL},
> > > > > > +	{0x0000, CLASS_KBD_BACKLIGHT, SELECT_KBD_BACKLIGHT},
> > > > > > +};
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Pali RohÃr
> > > > > pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > > --
> > > Pali RohÃr
> > > pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx
> >
> > Thanks very much for sharing.  I wasn't aware of this.  I'll send a patch.
> 
> Hi! Do you have a patch for it?

I used the wrong tag so it didn't automatically CC you.  Sorry about that.
It's here:

https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10146671/